Knowledge management:

Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or practice. An established discipline since 1991 (see Nonaka 1991), KM includes courses taught in the fields of business administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences (Alavi & Leidner 1999). More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy. Many large companies and non-profit organizations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their 'business strategy', 'information technology', or 'human resource management' departments (Addicott, McGivern & Ferlie 2006). Several consulting companies also exist that provide strategy and advice regarding KM to these organizations. Knowledge Management efforts typically focus on organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration and continuous improvement of the organization. KM efforts overlap with organizational learning, and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing of knowledge. KM efforts can help individuals and groups to share valuable organizational insights, to reduce redundant work, to avoid reinventing the wheel per se, to reduce training time for new employees, to retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organization, and to adapt to changing environments and markets (McAdam & McCreedy 2000) (Thompson & Walsham 2004).

History
KM efforts have a long history, to include on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training and

mentoring programs. More recently, with increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge bases, expert systems, knowledge repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and computer supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts. In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced which refers to the management of knowledge at the individual level In terms of the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognized the importance of knowledge management dimensions of strategy, process, and measurement (Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham 2002). Key lessons learned included: people, and the cultures that influence their behaviors, are the single most critical resource for successful knowledge creation, dissemination, and application; cognitive, social, and organizational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and measurement, benchmarking, and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive cultural change. In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organizations if they are purposeful, concrete, and action-oriented. More recently with the advent of the Web 2.0, the concept of Knowledge Management has evolved towards a vision more based on people participation and emergence. This line of evolution is termed Enterprise 2.0 (McAfee 2006). However, there is an ongoing debate and discussions (Lakhani & McAfee 2007) as to whether Enterprise 2.0 is just a fad that does not bring anything new or useful or whether it is, indeed, the future of knowledge management (Davenport 2008).

Research
KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the earlier 1990s. It was initially supported solely by practitioners, when Scandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the worlds first Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating various sides of KM long before that. The objective of CKOs is to manage and maximize the intangible assets of their organizations. Gradually, CKOs became interested in not only practical but also theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was formed. The KM ideas taken up by academics, such as Ikujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi University), Thomas H. Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York University). In 2001, Thomas A. Stewart, former editor at FORTUNE Magazine and subsequently the editor of Harvard Business Review, published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual capital of organizations. Since its establishment, the KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity. First, there is a trend towards higher cooperation among academics; particularly, there has been a

drop in single-authored publications. Second, the role of practitioners has changed. Their contribution to academic research has been dramatically declining from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 (Serenko et al. 2010). A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exists with no unanimous agreement; approaches vary by author and school. As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:

Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing and creation. Organizational with a focus on how an organization can be designed to facilitate knowledge processes best. Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and environmental factors as a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem.

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include People, Processes, Technology (or) Culture, Structure, Technology, depending on the specific perspective (Spender & Scherer 2007). Different KM schools of thought include various lenses through which KM can be viewed and explained, to include:

community of practice (Wenger, McDermott & Synder 2001) social network analysis intellectual capital (Bontis & Choo 2002) information theory (McInerney 2002) complexity science Constructivism (Nanjappa & Grant 2003)

The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned (Ferguson 2005) with action research suggested as having more relevance (Andriessen 2004) and the need to translate the findings presented in academic journals to a practice (Booker, Bontis & Serenko 2008).

Dimensions
Different frameworks for distinguishing between knowledge exist. One proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge represents internalized knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as how he or she accomplishes particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental

focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[9] (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalized tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in order to share it, but the same effort must also permit individuals to internalize and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort. Subsequent research into KM suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory. Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside of our heads) (Serenko & Bontis 2004). Later on, Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model (SECI for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) which considers a spiraling knowledge process interaction between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalized' into implicit knowledge. More recently, together with Georg von Krogh, Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forwards (Nonaka & von Krogh 2009). A second proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between embedded knowledge of a system outside of a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) and embodied knowledge representing a learned capability of a human bodys nervous and endocrine systems (Sensky 2002). A third proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organization, or community. Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.

Strategies
Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities. Different organizations have tried various knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans. Considerable controversy exists over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has emerged. One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy). In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving

knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository.This is also commonly known as the Codification approach to KM. Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy). In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide their insights to the particular person or people needing this (Snowden 2002). This is also commonly known as the Personalization approach to KM. Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include:

rewards (as a means of motivating for knowledge sharing) storytelling (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge) cross-project learning after action reviews knowledge mapping (a map of knowledge repositories within a company accessible by all) communities of practice expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the experts) best practice transfer knowledge fairs competence management (systematic evaluation and planning of competences of individual organization members) proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can be either conducive or obstructive to knowledge sharing) master-apprentice relationship collaborative technologies (groupware, etc.) knowledge repositories (databases, bookmarking engines, etc.) measuring and reporting intellectual capital (a way of making explicit knowledge for companies) knowledge brokers (some organizational members take on responsibility for a specific "field" and act as first reference on whom to talk about a specific subject) social software (wikis, social bookmarking, blogs, etc.)

Motivations
A number of claims exist as to the motivations leading organizations to undertake a KM effort. Typical considerations driving a KM effort include:

Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and services Achieving shorter new product development cycles Facilitating and managing innovation and organizational learning Leveraging the expertise of people across the organization

Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights and ideas appropriate to their work Solving intractable or wicked problems Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals)

Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in this field may hopefully help to answer this question, as well as create consensus on what elements of KM help determine the success or failure of such efforts (Wilson 2002).

Technologie
Early KM technologies included online corporate yellow pages as expertise locators and document management systems. Combined with the early development of collaborative technologies (in particular Lotus Notes), KM technologies expanded in the mid-1990s. Subsequent KM efforts leveraged semantic technologies for search and retrieval and the development of e-learning tools for communities of practice (Capozzi 2007). More recently, development of social computing tools (such as bookmarks, blogs, and wikis) have allowed more unstructured, self-governing or ecosystem approaches to the transfer, capture and creation of knowledge, including the development of new forms of communities, networks, or matrixed organizations. However such tools for the most part are still based on text and code, and thus represent explicit knowledge transfer. These tools face challenges in distilling meaningful re-usable knowledge and ensuring that their content is transmissible through diverse channels (Andrus 2005). Software tools in knowledge management are a collection of technologies and are not necessarily acquired as a single software solution. Furthermore, these knowledge management software tools have the advantage of using the organization existing information technology infrastructure. Organizations and business decision makers spend a great deal of resources and make significant investments in the latest technology, systems and infrastructure to support knowledge management. It is imperative that these investments are validated properly, made wisely and that the most appropriate technologies and software tools are selected or combined to facilitate knowledge management. Knowledge management has also become a cornerstone in emerging business strategies such as Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) with companies increasingly turning to software vendors to enhance their efficiency in industries including, but not limited to, the aviation industry.

Knowledge Managers
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) "Knowledge manager" is a role and designation that has gained popularity over the past decade. The role has evolved drastically from that of one involving the creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories to one that involves influencing the culture of an organization toward improved knowledge sharing, reuse, learning, collaboration and innovation. Knowledge management functions are associated with different departments in different organizations. It may be combined with Quality, Sales, HR, Innovation, Operations etc. and is likely to be determined by the KM motivation of that particular organization. Knowledge managers have varied backgrounds ranging from Information Sciences to Business Management. An effective knowledge manager is likely to be someone who has a versatile skills portfolio and is comfortable with the concepts of organizational behavior/culture, processes, branding & marketing and collaborative technology.

Knowledge ManagementEmerging Perspectives

Yes, knowledge management is the hottest subject of the day. The question is: what is this activity called knowledge management, and why is it so important to each and every one of us? The following writings, articles, and links offer some emerging perspectives in response to these questions. As you read on, you can determine whether it all makes any sense or not.

Developing a Context
Like water, this rising tide of data can be viewed as an abundant, vital and necessary resource. With enough preparation, we should be able to tap into that reservoir -- and ride the wave -- by utilizing new ways to channel raw data into

meaningful information. That information, in turn, can then become the knowledge that leads to wisdom. Before attempting to address the question of knowledge management, it's probably appropriate to develop some perspective regarding this stuff called knowledge, which there seems to be such a desire to manage, really is. Consider this observation made by Neil Fleming as a basis for thought relating to the following diagram.
o o o o

A collection of A collection of A collection of A collection of truth.

data is not information. information is not knowledge. knowledge is not wisdom. wisdom is not

The idea is that information, knowledge, and wisdom are more than simply collections. Rather, the whole represents more than the sum of its parts and has a synergy of its own. We begin with data, which is just a meaningless point in space and time, without reference to either space or time. It is like an event out of context, a letter out of context, a word out of context. The key concept here being "out of context." And, since it is out of context, it is without a meaningful relation to anything else. When we encounter a piece of data, if it gets our attention at all, our first action is usually to attempt to find a way to attribute meaning to it. We do this by associating it with other things. If I see the number 5, I can immediately associate it with cardinal numbers and relate it to being greater than 4 and less than 6, whether this was implied by this particular instance or not. If I see a single word, such as "time," there is a tendency to immediately form associations with previous contexts within which I have found "time" to be meaningful. This might be, "being on time," "a stitch in time saves nine," "time never stops," etc. The implication here is that when there is no context, there is little or no meaning. So, we create context but, more often than not, that context is somewhat akin to conjecture, yet it fabricates meaning. That a collection of data is not information, as Neil indicated, implies that a collection of data for which there is no relation between the pieces of data is not information. The pieces of data may represent information, yet whether or not it is information depends on the understanding of the one perceiving the data. I would also tend to say that it depends on the knowledge of the interpreter, but I'm probably getting ahead of myself, since I haven't defined knowledge. What I will say at this point is that the extent of my understanding of the collection of

data is dependent on the associations I am able to discern within the collection. And, the associations I am able to discern are dependent on all the associations I have ever been able to realize in the past. Information is quite simply an understanding of the relationships between pieces of data, or between pieces of data and other information. While information entails an understanding of the relations between data, it generally does not provide a foundation for why the data is what it is, nor an indication as to how the data is likely to change over time. Information has a tendency to be relatively static in time and linear in nature. Information is a relationship between data and, quite simply, is what it is, with great dependence on context for its meaning and with little implication for the future. Beyond relation there is pattern where pattern is more than simply a relation of relations. Pattern embodies both a consistency and completeness of relations which, to an extent, creates its own context. Pattern also serves as an Archetype with both an implied repeatability and predictability. When a pattern relation exists amidst the data and information, the pattern has the potential to represent knowledge. It only becomes knowledge, however, when one is able to realize and understand the patterns and their implications. The patterns representing knowledge have a tendency to be more selfcontextualizing. That is, the pattern tends, to a great extent, to create its own context rather than being context dependent to the same extent that information is. A pattern which represents knowledge also provides, when the pattern is understood, a high level of reliability or predictability as to how the pattern will evolve over time, for patterns are seldom static. Patterns which represent knowledge have a completeness to them that information simply does not contain. Wisdom arises when one understands the foundational principles responsible for the patterns representing knowledge being what they are. And wisdom, even more so than knowledge, tends to create its own context. I have a preference for referring to these foundational principles as eternal truths, yet I find people have a tendency to be somewhat uncomfortable with this labeling. These foundational principles are universal and completely context independent. Of course, this last statement is sort of a redundant word game, for if the principle was context dependent, then it couldn't be universally true now could it?

So, in summary the following associations can reasonably be made:

Information relates to description, definition, or perspective (what, who, when, where). Knowledge comprises strategy, practice, method, or approach (how).

Wisdom embodies principle, insight, moral, or archetype (why).

Now that I have categories I can get hold of, maybe I can figure out what can be managed.

An Example
This example uses a bank savings account to show how data, information, knowledge, and wisdom relate to principal, interest rate, and interest.

Data:
The numbers 100 or 5%, completely out of context, are just pieces of data. Interest, principal, and interest rate, out of context, are not much more than data as each has multiple meanings which are context dependent.

Information:
If I establish a bank savings account as the basis for context, then interest, principal, and interest rate become meaningful in that context with specific interpretations.

Principal is the amount of money, $100, in the savings account. Interest rate, 5%, is the factor used by the bank to compute interest on the principal.

Knowledge:
If I put $100 in my savings account, and the bank pays 5% interest yearly, then at the end of one year the bank will compute the interest of $5 and add it to my principal and I will have $105 in the bank. This pattern represents knowledge, which, when I understand it, allows me to understand how the pattern will evolve over time and the results it will produce. In understanding the pattern, I know, and what I know is knowledge. If I deposit more money in my account, I will earn more interest, while if I withdraw money from my account, I will earn less interest.

Wisdom:
Getting wisdom out of this is a bit tricky, and is, in fact, founded in systems principles. The principle is that any action which produces a result which encourages more of the same action produces an emergent characteristic called growth. And, nothing grows forever for sooner or later growth runs into limits. If one studied all the individual components of this pattern, which represents knowledge, they would never discover the emergent characteristic of growth. Only when the pattern connects, interacts, and evolves over time, does the principle exhibit the characteristic of growth.

Note:
If the mechanics of this diagram are unfamiliar, you can find the basis in Systems Thinking Introduction. Now, if this knowledge is valid, why doesn't everyone simply become rich by putting money in a savings account and letting it grow? The answer has to do with the fact that the pattern described above is only a small part of a more elaborate pattern which operates over time. People don't get rich because they either don't put money in a savings account in the first place, or when they do, in time, they find things they need or want more than being rich, so they withdraw money. Withdrawing money depletes the principal and subsequently the interest they earn on that principal. Getting into this any deeper is more of a systems thinking exercise than is appropriate to pursue here.

A Continuum
Note that the sequence data -> information -> knowledge -> wisdom represents an emergent continuum. That is, although data is a discrete entity, the progression to information, to knowledge, and finally to wisdom does not occur in discrete stages of development. One progresses along the continuum as one's understanding develops. Everything is relative, and one can have partial

understanding of the relations that represent information, partial understanding of the patterns that represent knowledge, and partial understanding of the principles which are the foundation of wisdom. As the partial understanding stage.

Extending the Concept

We learn by connecting new information to patterns that we already understand. In doing so, we extend the patterns. So, in my effort to make sense of this continuum, I searched for something to connect it to that already made sense. And, I related it to Csikszentmihalyi's interpretation of complexity. Csikszentmihalyi provides a definition of complexity based on the degree to which something is simultaneously differentiated and integrated. His point is that complexity evolves along a corridor and he provides some very interesting examples as to why complexity evolves. The diagram below indicates that what is more highly differentiated and integrated is more complex. While high levels of differentiation without integration promote the complicated, that which is highly integrated, without differentiation, produces mundane. And, it should be rather obvious from personal experience that we tend to avoid the complicated and are uninterested in the mundane. The complexity that exists between these two alternatives is the path we generally find most attractive. On 4/27/05 Robert Lamb commented that Csikszentmihalyi's labeling could be is bit clearer if "Differentiation" was replaced by "Many Components" and "Integration" was replaced by Highly Interconnected." Robert also commented that "Common Sense" might be another label for "Mundane." If the mundane is something we seem to avoid paying attention to then "Common Sense" might often be a very appropriate label. Thanks Robert. What I found really interesting was the view that resulted when I dropped this diagram on top of the one at the beginning of this article. It seemed that "Integrated" and "Understanding" immediately

correlated to each other. There was also a real awareness that "Context Independence" related to "Differentiated." Overall, the continuum of data to wisdom seemed to correlate exactly to Csikszentmihalyi's model of evolving complexity. I now end up with a perception that wisdom is sort of simplified complexity.

Knowledge Management: Bah Humbug!

When I first became interested in knowledge as a concept, and then knowledge management, it was because of the connections I made between my system studies and the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom descriptions already stated. Saying that I became interested is a bit of an understatement as I'm generally either not interested or obsessed, and seldom anywhere in between. Then, after a couple months I managed to catch myself, with the help of Mike Davidson as to the indirection I was pursuing. I managed to survive the Formula Fifties, the Sensitive Sixties, the Strategic Seventies, and the Excellent Eighties to exist in the Nanosecond Nineties, and for a time I thought I was headed for the Learning Organizational Oh's of the next decade. The misdirection I was caught up in was a focus on Knowledge Management not as a means, but as an end in itself. Yes, knowledge management is important, and I'll address reasons why shortly. But knowledge management should simply be one of many cooperating means to an end, not the end in itself, unless your job turns out to be corporate knowledge management director or chief knowledge officer. I'm quite sure it will come to this, for in some ways we are predictably consistent. I associate the cause of my indirection with the many companies I have been associated with in the past. These companies had pursued TQM or reengineering, not in support of what they were trying to accomplish, but as ends in themselves because they simply didn't know what they were really trying to accomplish. And, since they didn't know what they were really trying to accomplish, the misdirection was actually a relief, and pursued with a passion­­it just didn't get them anywhere in particular. According to Mike Davidson and I agree with him, what's really important is:

Mission: What are we trying to accomplish?

Competition: How do we gain a competitive edge? Performance: How do we deliver the results? Change: How do we cope with change?

As such, knowledge management, and everything else for that matter, is important only to the extent that it enhances an organization's ability and capacity to deal with, and develop in, these four dimensions.

The Value of Knowledge Management

In an organizational context, data represents facts or values of results, and relations between data and other relations have the capacity to represent information. Patterns of relations of data and information and other patterns have the capacity to represent knowledge. For the representation to be of any utility it must be understood, and when understood the representation is information or knowledge to the one that understands. Yet, what is the real value of information and knowledge, and what does it mean to manage it? Without associations we have little chance of understanding anything. We understand things based on the associations we are able to discern. If someone says that sales started at $100,000 per quarter and have been rising 20% per quarter for the last four quarters, I am somewhat confident that sales are now about $207,000 per quarter. I am confident because I know what "rising 20% per quarter" means and I can do the math. Yet, if someone asks what sales are apt to be next quarter, I would have to say, "It depends!" I would have to say this because although I have data and information, I have no knowledge. This is a trap that many fall into, because they don't understand that data doesn't predict trends of data. What predicts trends of data is the activity that is responsible for the data. To be able to estimate the sales for next quarter, I would need information about the competition, market size, extent of market saturation, current backlog, customer satisfaction levels associated with current product delivery, current production capacity, the extent of capacity utilization, and a whole host of other things. When I was able to amass sufficient data and information to form a complete pattern that I understood, I would have knowledge, and would then be somewhat comfortable estimating the sales for next quarter. Anything less would be just fantasy! In this example what needs to be managed to create value is the data that defines past results, the data and information associated with the organization, it's market, it's customers, and it's competition, and the patterns which relate all these items to enable a reliable level of predictability of the future.What I would refer to as knowledge management would be the capture, retention, and

reuse of the foundation for imparting an understanding of how all these pieces fit together and how to convey them meaningfully to some other person. The value of Knowledge Management relates directly to the effectiveness with which the managed knowledge enables the members of the organization to deal with today's situations and effectively envision and create their future. Without on-demand access to managed knowledge, every situation is addressed based on what the individual or group brings to the situation with them. With on-demand access to managed knowledge, every situation is addressed with the sum total of everything anyone in the organization has ever learned about a situation of a similar nature. Which approach would you perceive would make a more effective organization?

Knowledge management system

Knowledge Management System (KM System) refers to a (generally IT based) system for managing knowledge in organizations for supporting creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information. It can comprise a part (neither necessary nor sufficient) of a Knowledge Management initiative. The idea of a KM system is to enable employees to have ready access to the organization's documented base of facts, sources of information, and solutions. For example a typical claim justifying the creation of a KM system might run something like this: an engineer could know the metallurgical composition of an alloy that reduces sound in gear systems. Sharing this information organization wide can lead to more effective engine design and it could also lead to ideas for new or improved equipment. A KM system could be any of the following: 1. Document based i.e. any technology that permits creation/management/sharing of formatted documents such as Lotus Notes, web, distributed databases etc. 2. Ontology/Taxonomy based: these are similar to document technologies in the sense that a system of terminologies (i.e. ontology) are used to

summarize the document e.g. Author, Subj, Organization etc. as in DAML & other XML based ontologies 3. Based on AI technologies which use a customized representation scheme to represent the problem domain. 4. Provide network maps of the organization showing the flow of communication between entities and individuals 5. Increasingly social computing tools are being deployed to provide a more organic approach to creation of a KM system. KMS systems deal with information (although Knowledge Management as a discipline may extend beyond the information centric aspect of any system) so they are a class of information system and may build on, or utilize other information sources. Distinguishing features of a KMS can include: 1. Purpose: a KMS will have an explicit Knowledge Management objective of some type such as collaboration, sharing good practice or the like. 2. Context: One perspective on KMS would see knowledge is information that is meaningfully organized, accumulated and embedded in a context of creation and application. 3. Processes: KMS are developed to support and enhance knowledge-intensive processes, tasks or projects of e.g., creation, construction, identification, capturing, acquisition, selection, valuation, organization, linking, structuring, formalization, visualization, transfer, distribution, retention, maintenance, refinement, revision, evolution, accessing, retrieval and last but not least the application of knowledge, also called the knowledge life cycle. 4. Participants: Users can play the roles of active, involved participants in knowledge networks and communities fostered by KMS, although this is not necessarily the case. KMS designs are held to reflect that knowledge is developed collectively and that the distribution of knowledge leads to its continuous change, reconstruction and application in different contexts, by different participants with differing backgrounds and experiences. 5. Instruments: KMS support KM instruments, e.g., the capture, creation and sharing of the codifiable aspects of experience, the creation of corporate knowledge directories, taxonomies or ontologies, expertise locators, skill management systems, collaborative filtering and handling of interests used to connect people, the creation and fostering of communities or knowledge networks. A KMS offers integrated services to deploy KM instruments for networks of participants, i.e. active knowledge workers, in knowledge-intensive business processes along the entire knowledge life cycle. KMS can be used for a wide range of cooperative, collaborative, adhocracy and hierarchy communities, virtual organizations, societies and other virtual networks, to manage media contents; activities, interactions and work-flows purposes; projects; works,

networks, departments, privileges, roles, participants and other active users in order to extract and generate new knowledge and to enhance, leverage and transfer in new outcomes of knowledge providing new services using new formats and interfaces and different communication channels. The term KMS can be associated to Open Source Software, and Open Standards, Open Protocols and Open Knowledge licenses, initiatives and policies.

Benefits of KM Systems
Some of the advantages claimed for KM systems are: 1. Sharing of valuable organizational information throughout organisational hierarchy. 2. Can avoid re-inventing the wheel, reducing redundant work. 3. May reduce training time for new employees 4. Retention of Intellectual Property after the employee leaves if such knowledge can be codified.

Knowledge Management - Can You Identify The Six Main Characteristics?

Knowledge vs Information
The challenge of Knowledge Management is to determine what information within an organization qualifies Six principles and key characteristics of CIO management in leading organizations: 1. Recognize the role of information

as"valuable."All information is not knowledge, and all knowledge is not valuable. The key is to find the worthwhile knowledge within a vast sea of information. 1. Knowledge Management is about people.It is directly linked to what people know, and how what they know can support business and organizational objectives. It draws on human competency, intuition, ideas, and motivations. It is not a technology-based concept. Although technology can support a Knowledge Management effort, it shouldnt begin there. 2. Knowledge Management is orderly and goal-directed.It is inextricably tied to the strategic objectives of the organization. It uses only the information that is the most meaningful, practical, and purposeful. 3. Knowledge Management is everchanging.There is no such thing as an immutable law in Knowledge Management. Knowledge is constantly tested, updated, revised, and sometimes even"obsoleted"when it is no longer practicable. It is a fluid, ongoing process. 4. Knowledge Management is valueadded.It draws upon pooled expertise, relationships, and alliances. Organizations can further the two-way exchange of ideas by bringing in experts from the field to advise or educate managers on recent trends and developments. Forums, councils, and boards can be instrumental in creating common ground and organizational cohesiveness.

management in creating value. An organization must recognize and accept the critical role information management plays in the success of an organization and the leadership role the CIO must assume in order to maximize the full potential of information technology. 2. Position the CIO for success. The CIO must be recognized as a full participant of the executive management team, and be given the technical and management skills to meet business needs. 3. Ensure the credibility of the CIO organization. Without credibility, the CIO organization will struggle. The CIO must have the commitment of line management; must accomplish quick, high-impact, visible successes balanced with longer-term strategies; and must learn from partnering with successful leaders in the external information management community. 4. Measure success and demonstrate results. Technical measures must be balanced with business measures, and managers must continually work to establish active feedback between performance measures and business processes. 5. Organize information resources to meet business needs. In order to execute its responsibilities reliably and efficiently, the CIO organization must have a clear understanding of its responsibilities in meeting business needs. The organization should be flexible enough to adapt to change.

5. Knowledge Management is visionary.This vision is expressed in strategic business terms rather than technical terms, and in a manner that generates enthusiasm, buy-in, and motivates managers to work together toward reaching common goals. 6. Knowledge Management is complementary.It can be integrated with other organizational learning initiatives such as Total Quality Management (TQM). It is important for knowledge managers to show interim successes along with progress made on more protracted efforts such as multiyear systems developments infrastructure, or enterprise architecture projects.

6. Develop information management human capital. The CIO organization identifies the skills it needs to implement information management in line with business needs; develops innovative ways to attract and retain talent; and provides the training, tools, and methods IT professionals must have to effectively perform their duties.

Developing a knowledge management strategy

Organisations are facing ever-increasing challenges, brought on by marketplace pressures or the nature of the workplace. Many organisations are now looking to knowledge management (KM) to address these challenges. Such initiatives are often started with the development of a knowledge management strategy. To be successful, a KM strategy must do more than just outline high-level goals such as become a knowledge-enabled organisation. Instead, the strategy must identify the key needs and issues within the organisation, and provide a framework for addressing these. This article provides an approach for developing a KM strategy that focuses strongly on an initial needs analysis.

Taking this approach ensures that any activities and initiatives are firmly grounded in the real needs and challenges confronting the organisation.

The need for knowledge management

There are a number of common situations that are widely recognised as benefiting from knowledge management approaches. While they are not the only issues that can be tackled with KM techniques, it is useful to explore a number of these situations in order to provide a context for the development of a KM strategy. Beyond these typical situations, each organisation will have unique issues and problems to be overcome. A KM strategy must address the real needs and issues

Call centres
Call centres have increasingly become the main public face for many organisations. This role is made more challenging by the expectations of customers that they can get the answers they need within minutes of ringing up. Other challenges confront call centres, including

high-pressure, closely-monitored environment high staff turnover costly and lengthy training for new staff

In this environment, the need for knowledge management is clear and immediate. Failure to address these issues impacts upon sales, public reputation or legal exposure.

Front-line staff
Beyond the call centre, many organizations have a wide range of front-line staff who interact with customers or members of the public. They may operate in the field, such as sales staff or maintenance crews; or be located at branches or behind front-desks. In large organizations, these front-line staff are often very dispersed geographically, with limited communication channels to head office. Typically,

there are also few mechanisms for sharing information between staff working in the same business area but different locations. The challenge in the front-line environment is to ensure consistency, accuracy and repeatability. For more on this, see the article Knowledge management for front-line staff.

Business managers
The volume of information available to business management has increased greatly. Known as information overload or info-glut, the challenge is now to filter out the key information needed to support business decisions. The pace of organisational change is also increasing, as are the demands on the people skills of management staff. In this environment, there is a need for sound decision making. These decisions are enabled by accurate, complete and relevant information. Knowledge management can play a key role in supporting the information needs of management staff. It can also assist with the mentoring and coaching skills needed by modern managers. The loss of key staff can have a major impact

Aging workforce
The public sector is particularly confronted by the impacts of an aging workforce. Increasingly, private sector organisations are also recognising that this issue needs to be addressed if the continuity of business operations are to be maintained. Long-serving staff have a depth of knowledge that is relied upon by other staff, particularly in environments where little effort has been put into capturing or managing knowledge at an organisational level. In this situation, the loss of these key staff can have a major impact upon the level of knowledge within the organisation. Knowledge management can assist by putting in place a structured mechanism for capturing or transferring this knowledge when staff retire.

Supporting innovation
Many organisations have now recognised the importance of innovation in ensuring long-term growth (and even survival). This is particularly true in fast-moving industry sectors such as IT, consulting, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals. Most organisations, however, are constructed to ensure consistency, repeatability and efficiency of current processes and products. Innovation is does not tend to sit comfortably with this type of focus, and organisations often need to look to unfamiliar techniques to encourage and drive innovation. There has been considerable work in the knowledge management field regarding the process of innovation, and how to nurture it in a business environment.

Organisational environment
Every organisation has a unique environment, defined by factors such as:

purpose and activities of the organisation overall strategic direction organisational culture size of the organisation geographic spread staff skills and experience organisational history available resources marketplace factors

For this reason, each organisation has a unique set of needs and issues to be addressed by knowledge management. It is easy to jump into solutions mode, recommending approaches such as communities of practice, storytelling, content management systems, and much more.

While these approaches may have widespread success in other organisations, they will only succeed in the current environment if they meet actual staff needs. In practice, organisations are littered with well-meaning but poorly targeted knowledge management activities. In many cases, these failed because they simply didnt address a clear, concrete and imperative problem within the organisation. This is now recognised as one of the critical success factors for knowledge management: identify the needs within the organisation, and then design the activities accordingly. Avoid jumping directly into solutions mode

Developing a KM strategy
There are many approaches for developing a knowledge management strategy, each supported by a holistic model of KM processes.

Developing a knowledge management strategy These can be classified into two main approaches:

Top-down The overall strategic direction of the organisation is used to identify the focus of the knowledge management initiative. This is reflected in a series of activities designed to meet this broad goal.

Bottom-up Research is conducted into the activities of staff involved in key business processes. The findings of this research highlights key staff needs and issues, which are then tackled through a range of knowledge management initiatives.

Each of these approaches has its strengths, and in practice, a success KM programme must encompass both. This article presents a model that focuses strongly on the needs analysis activities with staff, to drive a primarily bottom-up strategy, as follows: 1. Identify the key staff groups within the organisation. These groups deliver the greatest business value, or are involved in the most important business activities. 2. Conduct comprehensive and holistic needs analysis activities with selected staff groups, to identify key needs and issues. 3. Supplement this research with input from senior management and organisational strategy documents, to determine an overall strategic focus. 4. Based on these findings, develop recommendations for addressing the issues and needs identified. 5. Implement a series of strategic and tactical initiatives, based on the recommendations. These will select suitable knowledge management techniques and approaches.

Benefits of this approach

Historically, many knowledge management strategies have focused solely on the top-down approach, identifying high-level objectives such as become a knowledge-enabled organisation. With little understanding, of the key issues and needs of staff throughout the organisation, these initiatives found it difficult to engage staff in the required cultural and process changes. As a result, many of these initiatives had little long-term impact on the organisation, despite initial efforts. Recognising these issues, this approach focuses much more strongly on the initial needs analysis activities. The approach to developing a KM strategy outlined in this article provides a number of major benefits:

Holistic
The focus on needs analysis will identify a wide range of issues and requirements. Some will be organisation-wide, while others will be specific to individual business units or job roles. The use of a range of needs analysis techniques will identify:

cultural issues key business needs duplication of effort inconsistencies in practices inefficiencies in business processes opportunities for improved policies or procedures major business risks and much more

Solution-independent
The approach used to develop the knowledge management strategy makes no assumptions about the solutions that might be implemented. As such, the approach is independent of any technologies implemented, or knowledge management techniques applied. Instead, the approach is to identify the need, and then determine the solution. Talking with staff is always enlightening

Simple
The use of well-tested needs analysis techniques gives confidence that the true issues in the organisation will be identified. In practice, these simply fall out of the research activities, with the key strategic and tactical recommendations becoming obvious in most cases. This simplicity makes the process easy to implement, and ensures that the findings and recommendations are well-understood throughout the organisation.

Efficient

A modest amount of initial research will be sufficient to identify the most crucial problems within the organisation. These can then be tackled with suitable activities and initiatives. Once this first round of projects have delivered tangible business benefits, additional targeted research can be used to identify further issues to be addressed. This iterative approach can then be repeated, ensuring that business improvements are seen even as the next round of research is initiated.

Targets resources
There are many good ideas that can be drawn from the field of knowledge management. The challenge is to identify those approaches that will have the greatest impact upon the organisation. By starting with the needs analysis, approaches can be targeted to address the most critical issues, or to deliver the greatest business benefits. Target the critical issues with the KM strategy

Identifying key staff groups

The first step in the process is to identify the key staff groups in the organisation. The key staff are typically those directly involved in the most important business activities. In general, the key staff groups are more likely to be those at the front-line, rather than managers or administrative staff. This will, of course, depend on the nature and structure of the organisation. Common staff groups involve:

front-line staff call centre staff field workers researchers

clinical staff production workers administrative and support staff managers (senior, line) IT staff

Each of these groups will have specific needs and issues, as well as those in common with the organisation as a whole. By targeting the key staff groups, the extent to which the needs vary across the organisation can be identified, and the KM strategy developed accordingly. Needs analysis techniques are drawn from many fields

Needs analysis techniques

There are a wide range of need analysis techniques, drawn from fields such as knowledge management, user-centred design, ethnography and anthropology. Techniques include:

facilitated discussions focus groups surveys staff interviews workplace observation contextual inquiry task analysis

In practice, more than one technique should be used with a selected group of staff, to ensure that a complete picture is built up. Each of the techniques are briefly described in the sections below.

Facilitated discussions
There are a wide range of facilitated discussion techniques that can be used to explore issues with targeted staff groups. These are most commonly used with

management, consultants, and other staff comfortable with these types of meetings. Techniques such as affinity diagrams can be used to provide structure to the discussions, and to capture the issues identified. In many cases, facilitated discussions are used as the primary mechanism for gaining the strategic input required for the development of the KM strategy.

Focus groups
These are a specific, and widely-used, form of facilitated discussions that focus on exploring a topic within a group setting. Often used as a way of gathering input from larger numbers of stakeholders, focus groups must be run carefully if they are to generate meaningful results. Focus group are best used to explore current issues and problems, rather than to discuss future wish-lists of knowledge management approaches. Focus groups should always be used in conjunction with techniques such as staff interviews and contextual inquiry, to ensure that the results are meaningful.

Surveys
The use of surveys is widespread, and they are a very efficient way of gaining input from a large number of staff throughout an organisation. In practice, surveys are best used to gather staff opinions, rather than specific information on which to base decisions. Care must also be taken when developing the survey questions, and analysing the results. Survey results must always be supported with the use of other techniques, to provide confidence in the findings. Interviews are very effective at identifying staff needs

Staff interviews
One-on-one interviews are one of the most effective and often used techniques for identifying staff needs and issues.

For more on applying these as part of a knowledge management project, see the following two articles:

Stakeholder interviews as simple knowledge mapping Selecting staff for stakeholder interviews

Workplace observation
This involves going out into the field to observe the activities of staff, and the environment in which they work. Workplace observation is particularly effective in environments such as call centres, manufacturing areas, field working, or on-the-road staff. It is a very holistic technique that will identify patterns of work and environment issues that are impossible to gather using techniques such as surveys or focus groups.

Contextual inquiry
This is a combination of staff interviews and workplace observation that involves exploring issues with a staff person, while situated within their normal working environment. By conducting the interview in context, it becomes possible to see the resources used by staff when conducting work activities. The interviewer can also ask the staff person to show them how they complete specific activities, for example, showing how they find a piece of information on the intranet. This technique is very effective at identifying issues with currently-available information sources and tools.

Task analysis

Not all activities within an organisation are of equal value. Key business tasks should be identified, and investigated to gain an understanding of the steps involved, and the knowledge required at each step. The existing sources of the knowledge can then be identified, along with the key issues and roadblocks impacting upon the effectiveness and efficiency of the task. This type of research will identify mechanisms for both improving the task itself, as well as indicating how to improve the provision of knowledge to those involved in completing the task. Supplement the needs analysis with a strategic focus

Strategic input
While the needs analysis activities focused on the bottom-up aspects of the KM project, the overall strategic focus must also be identified. This strategic focus then guides the knowledge management strategy, providing a framework for the selection and prioritisation of individual projects and activities. In this way, both the bottom-up and top-down aspects of the knowledge management strategy are addressed. There are a number of sources of input that can be drawn upon when determining the strategic focus, including:

Senior management involvement, via interviews, facilitated discussions, or other interactions. Organisational strategy documents, such as the corporate plan or annual report. Results of other strategic research projects, such as staff satisfaction surveys. External market research. Industry best practices, and other reports drawn from relevant industry or sector bodies.

These inputs can then be synthesised into a strategic focus for the knowledge management initiatives. Use corporate documents as a key strategic input

Common findings
The needs analysis and strategic input will highlight a broad range of issues and needs throughout the organisation. In past projects, we have identified issues such as:

difficulty in finding key corporate information inconsistent and unstructured approach to information management ineffective dissemination of corporate and regional news reliance on rumour and gossip as the key sources of organisational news lack of knowledge sharing between related business units difficulties in determining and disseminating best practices inconsistency in advice given by call centre and front-line staff over reliance on long-service members of staff as sources of knowledge cultural barriers between head office and regional staff duplication of effort between regions roadblocks between policy development and programme implementation

These are just a small sampling of possible findings, to provide an idea of the types of issues that will often drive the implementation of a knowledge management strategy.

Acting on the findings

With an in-depth understanding of the problems, issues and needs within the organisation, it is then possible to meaningfully determine appropriate strategies for addressing them. This will undoubtedly include a range of both strategic (long-term) and tactical (short-term) initiatives. Depending on the issues identified, these might include:

improving the corporate intranet formalising communities of practice implementing coaching and mentoring programmes improving document and records management facilitating skills transfer from retiring staff capturing staff knowledge in a documented form improving policies and procedures implementing new learning approaches, including e-learning enhancing the corporate staff directory implementing team collaboration tools and processes

establishing after-action review processes formalising the role of knowledge brokers within the organisation

These are just a small cross-section of the many possible approaches that can be taken to knowledge management. As highlighted throughout this article, only the needs analysis activities allow a meaningful selection to be made between these different approaches. In practice, each organisation will apply a unique mix of short-term quick wins and longer-term projects to meet knowledge management needs.

Conclusion
Developing a knowledge management strategy provides a unique opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the way the organisation operates, and the challenges that confront it. By focusing on identifying staff needs and issues, activities and initiatives can be recommended with the confidence that these will have a clear and measurable impact upon the organisation. Supplementing this bottom-up research with a strategic focus then ensures that the KM initiative is aligned with broader organisational directions. Taking this approach to the development of a KM strategy allows limited resources to be targeted to the key needs within the organisation, delivering the greatest business benefits while positioning the organisation for long-term growth and stability.